Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 10
 [ 190 posts ] 
You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

Lumpers and splitters are opposing factions in any discipline that has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories. The lumper-splitter problem occurs when there is the need to create classifications and assign examples to them, for example schools of literature, biological taxa and so on. A "lumper" is an individual who takes a gestalt view of a definition, and assigns examples broadly, assuming that differences are not as important as signature similarities. A "splitter" is an individual who takes precise definitions, and creates new categories to classify samples that differ in key ways.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:34 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

You cannot say "more" when you never have shown any. This is not equivocating. This is exactly how you sound like when you say:

Hominids are expressly a different group than those groups which contain monkeys - they have readily identifiable genes and morphology that makes them a distinct group.


Frogs are a subset of amphibians, just like hominids are a subset of monkeys. Analogously same, just using another organism and another taxon, not equivocation.


Denies equivocation by equivocating.

Bonkers.

Monkeys are not a clade, not a valid label, not anything other than an English word.

You can't deal with that, so you keep making up arguments that are not parallel.

I can point this out to you all day long.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:37 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

The guys who do phylogenetic cladistic classification so yeah, the evolutionary biologist.


Yup, typical elitism. Sadly, it's completely arse about tit. A course on human evolution expressly involves cladistics, specifically about hominids and primates, but special pleading, special pleading, my guy pisses higher up the wall than yours.

Incidentally, for the record, Nesslig20 is lying through his teeth. He's never once addressed what John Hawks said. He keeps saying it's the same as Marks, even though it's not in the slightest.

This is exactly like debating a Creationist - not a single shred of discoursive honesty.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:40 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 264Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

You cannot say "more" when you never have shown any. This is not equivocating. This is exactly how you sound like when you say:

Hominids are expressly a different group than those groups which contain monkeys - they have readily identifiable genes and morphology that makes them a distinct group.


Frogs are a subset of amphibians, just like hominids are a subset of monkeys. Analogously same, just using another organism and another taxon, not equivocation.


Sparhafoc wrote:Denies equivocation by equivocating.

Bonkers.

Monkeys are not a clade, not a valid label, not anything other than an English word.

You can't deal with that, so you keep making up arguments that are not parallel.

I can point this out to you all day long.


Again, NOT equivocating!!! I explained to you that when you describe what a monkey is by listing every characteristic of everything that is a monkey, you will describe hominids as well, thus they are a subset of them. Keep telling yourself that this is equivocating is not making an argument.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:41 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:Again, NOT equivocating!!! I explained to you that when you describe what a monkey is by listing every characteristic of everything that is a monkey, you will describe hominids as well, thus they are a subset of them. Keep telling yourself that this is equivocating is not making an argument.


It is equivocation because every time you try to make this point, you start using other ranks like 'mammal'.

Monkeys aren't a clade, aren't a group, are only a word used in a woolly fashion by English speakers.

I can keep writing it until you process it.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:43 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

D'accord, alors passons au français pour donner un autre exemple. En tant que néerlandais, je suis sûr que votre français est meilleur que le mien. Alors continuez, parle moi des monkeys, et comment ils sont un groupe valide en français.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:46 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

As is ape.


Which shows you don't grasp the point.

No, there's not a word 'ape' in every language. I already informed you of that.

Go look up the word 'ape' in Thai. Good luck with that.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:57 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Me explaining to you the same thing that I am explaining to creationists is not a good thing.


The problem, of course, being that you feel the need to when none of what you've written is relevant to my points.

You'll just do it again and again and again, and never process my point as to why 'monkey' is not a valid clade label, or that calling organisms descended via millions of iterations with vastly different genotypes and phenotypes offers utility ONLY in a field which is specifically intended to systematize those relationships.

You can't process anything outside that bubble. Perhaps you should spend less time wrangling with Creationists, and more time talking to scientists so you know how to do it.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:04 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 264Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Sparhafoc wrote:
The guys who do phylogenetic cladistic classification so yeah, the evolutionary biologist.


Yup, typical elitism. Sadly, it's completely arse about tit. A course on human evolution expressly involves cladistics, specifically about hominids and primates, but special pleading, special pleading, my guy pisses higher up the wall than yours.

Incidentally, for the record, Nesslig20 is lying through his teeth. He's never once addressed what John Hawks said. He keeps saying it's the same as Marks, even though it's not in the slightest.

This is exactly like debating a Creationist - not a single shred of discoursive honesty.


I take any accusation of lying very serious. What I have said here also addressed the arguments made by both Marks and Hawks, but just to prove it conclusively I will copy past the arguments made by both and address both arguments in the exact same way.

From marks.
https://popanth.com/article/are-we-apes ... are-humans

From Hawks
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phyl ... -2012.html


Okay frist point:

Marks wrote:Our ancestors were of course apes. That is what science shows. Our closest zoological relatives are apes, and we fall phylogenetically among them–indeed, we are closer to a chimpanzee than that chimpanzee is to an orangutan.


Hawks wrote:Phylogenetically, humans are part of the group that includes orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. Many anthropologists call this group “Hominidae”, although others would put this at a different taxonomic level than the family level (the level implied by the “idae” ending).
None of this is especially controversial. We disagree about the taxonomic level – some would retain “hominid” to refer to the human branch, and assign the great apes and humans to a higher-level taxonomic level. But the phylogeny is perfectly clear. Humans are hominoids, and hominids, and anthropoids, and primates.


Both here make the same point, humans are phylogenetically in the same category as the other apes. Right. They don't agree that this means we are apes, but in cladistics, this is exactly the reason why we are apes.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:07 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 264Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Sparhafoc wrote:
Me explaining to you the same thing that I am explaining to creationists is not a good thing.


The problem, of course, being that you feel the need to when none of what you've written is relevant to my points.

You'll just do it again and again and again, and never process my point as to why 'monkey' is not a valid clade label, or that calling organisms descended via millions of iterations with vastly different genotypes and phenotypes offers utility ONLY in a field which is specifically intended to systematize those relationships.

You can't process anything outside that bubble. Perhaps you should spend less time wrangling with Creationists, and more time talking to scientists so you know how to do it.





HOLY SHIT, can you keep all your responses in ONE post please!! And BTW, I want to make it much simpler for you, just ignore all of the comments I have made and lets start from scratch because this is getting way out of hand with us making long responses.

Ignore this post and Only respond to the next one I will make. Answer it with patience.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:10 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:I take any accusation of lying very serious. What I have said here also addressed the arguments made by both Marks and Hawks, but just to prove it conclusively I will copy past the arguments made by both and address both arguments in the exact same way.

From marks.
https://popanth.com/article/are-we-apes ... are-humans

From Hawks
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phyl ... -2012.html


Well lookee here! You finally showed the fucking article written by Marks!



Nesslig20 wrote:Okay frist point:

Marks wrote:Our ancestors were of course apes. That is what science shows. Our closest zoological relatives are apes, and we fall phylogenetically among them–indeed, we are closer to a chimpanzee than that chimpanzee is to an orangutan.


Hawks wrote:Phylogenetically, humans are part of the group that includes orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. Many anthropologists call this group “Hominidae”, although others would put this at a different taxonomic level than the family level (the level implied by the “idae” ending).
None of this is especially controversial. We disagree about the taxonomic level – some would retain “hominid” to refer to the human branch, and assign the great apes and humans to a higher-level taxonomic level. But the phylogeny is perfectly clear. Humans are hominoids, and hominids, and anthropoids, and primates.


Both here make the same point, humans are phylogenetically in the same category as the other apes. Right. They don't agree that this means we are apes, but in cladistics, this is exactly the reason why we are apes.



Clearly, completely bullshit. Hawks is arguing that the word 'ape' is a woolly bullshit word - the entire point of his article, meanwhile Marks is arguing that we are related to apes and are in fact apes phylogenetically. So your own example shows you were wrong to pretend they were one and the same argument.

Anyway, to establish you weren't lying through your teeth, you'd need to show where you addressed Hawks' post in this thread. Shell games ain't going to work. Feel free to just acknowledge it as an error on your part.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:11 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:HOLY SHIT, can you keep all your responses in ONE post please!!


Kindly pop your tone-trolling back up into the sticky passage from which you withdrew it.



Nesslig20 wrote:And BTW, I want to make it much simpler for you, just ignore all of the comments I have made and lets start from scratch because this is getting way out of hand with us making long responses.

Ignore this post and Only respond to the next one I will make. Answer it with patience.


No. I am not here to follow your commands. I will respond how I want, when I want, and in any manner I deem to be suitable.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:12 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 264Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

At Sparhafoc

You have said that tetrapods aren't fish since there are a host of differences between the two. Let's establish that conclusively by defining our terms. What is a fish?

Or more specifically.

Define the word fish by
1. Take everything that YOU already accept as being a fish.
2. List the characteristics that are universally held by all of them and only by them.

Now you have a definition of what a fish is. Like:

A fish is an animal that has the following characteristics............
1. X
2. Y
3. Z
4. etc

Please don't dodge this.





Extra, if you want, we can talk on google hangouts. here is the link. I will be there if you want?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raxlzzNiYtI
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:13 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:At Sparhafoc

You have said that tetrapods aren't fish since there are a host of differences between the two. Let's establish that conclusively by defining our terms. What is a fish?


Thanks for, once again, establishing beyond reasonable doubt that you can't process my argument.

What I said is a) 'fish' is not a valid cladistic label - the English (i.e. unscientific) word is paraphyletic. b) we don't call things names based on what they originated from except in very specific uses, i.e. phylogenetic systematics.



Nesslig20 wrote:Or more specifically.

Define the word fish by
1. Take everything that YOU already accept as being a fish.
2. List the characteristics that are universally held by all of them and only by them.

Now you have a definition of what a fish is. Like:

A fish is an animal that has the following characteristics............
1. X
2. Y
3. Z
4. etc

Please don't dodge this.



If you want to do it - go ahead. Stop trying to get me to make your argument for you. I've already told you that I am not a fucking expert in 'fish' morphology. How many times are we going to engage in this dance?

And it doesn't fucking matter. You are STILL trying to argue something that is NOT contrary to my point, because you refuse to read my actual point.
[/quote]
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:26 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:Well both. The problem that the guy is having is what most people are having. They cling to the traditional view that apes are not monkeys and only an ignorant person would call an ape a monkey. And he goes even further and says that humans aren't apes either, something that hasn't been a point of contention anymore every since we sequenced the genomes of humans and other apes. We are apes, get over it.

Just like we used to say that humans didn't evolve from apes (and aren't apes) but we evolved from a common ancestor, now we are saying the same thing with monkeys, the exact same indefensible reason.... because TRADITION!!!



This is the perfect example of how you completely fail to address my point, how you keep strawmanning me, and how you've basically spent thousands of words trotting out arguments designed for Creationists but with no fucking application to my own argument.

I am not saying we aren't apes because of tradition.

I am saying we are hominids - a valid classificatory rank, and that the word 'ape' is a bullshit woolly word with no rigor to it.

I am not saying we aren't monkeys because of tradition.

I am saying we are simiiformes - a valid classificatory rank, and that the word 'monkey' is a bullshit woolly word with no rigor to it.

Obviously, the whole 'ignorant' thing there was just projection given that you've treated me throughout as if I am ignorant.

The problem I am having is how you are misusing words and failing to address my argument as to why those misuses matter.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:31 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 264Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Sparhafoc wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:At Sparhafoc

You have said that tetrapods aren't fish since there are a host of differences between the two. Let's establish that conclusively by defining our terms. What is a fish?


Thanks for, once again, establishing beyond reasonable doubt that you can't process my argument.

What I said is a) 'fish' is not a valid cladistic label - the English (i.e. unscientific) word is paraphyletic. b) we don't call things names based on what they originated from except in very specific uses, i.e. phylogenetic systematics.



Nesslig20 wrote:Or more specifically.

Define the word fish by
1. Take everything that YOU already accept as being a fish.
2. List the characteristics that are universally held by all of them and only by them.

Now you have a definition of what a fish is. Like:

A fish is an animal that has the following characteristics............
1. X
2. Y
3. Z
4. etc

Please don't dodge this.



If you want to do it - go ahead. Stop trying to get me to make your argument for you. I've already told you that I am not a fucking expert in 'fish' morphology. How many times are we going to engage in this dance?

And it doesn't fucking matter. You are STILL trying to argue something that is NOT contrary to my point, because you refuse to read my actual point.
[/quote]

You have claimed that tetrapods aren't fish because there are a host of different characteristics separating the two. That is what I am asking for right now.

What is a fish. List the characteristics. It isn't that hard. I can help. A fish is an organism that has a brain enclosed inside a skull. That is what a fish is and it is consistent with everything that is accepted as a fish, however it also describes tetrapods, so tetrapods are fish as well.

How do YOU define fish? List the characteristics. I will correct it when you make a mistake.

Also, I am currently in this hangout.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raxlzzNiYtI

You can join and we can talk there, if you want.

Edit: I have send you a private message with the link of the hangout. It is Google hangouts. You need to be logged in on your G+ account go to google hangouts and then copy paste the link I send you.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:33 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Thanks for, once again, establishing beyond reasonable doubt that you can't process my argument.

What I said is a) 'fish' is not a valid cladistic label - the English (i.e. unscientific) word is paraphyletic. b) we don't call things names based on what they originated from except in very specific uses, i.e. phylogenetic systematics.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:24 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:You have said that tetrapods aren't fish since there are a host of differences between the two. I


May we have a citation for this, please? I don't recall it.
Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:39 am
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Ok, let's do that hard reset, Nesslig20.

And please accept my apology. I've been running a fever for the last few days and I probably should have shut up and waited til it was done before replying.

Here's my hard reset:

I do not deny the evolutionary relationship of common ancestry.

I do not deny that a group of lobe-finned fish evolved and began to colonize the land, and that all consequent terrestrial animals are descended from them.

I do not deny the utility of phylogenetic systematics, nor do I deny its methodology.

My two points are these:


1) Words like 'monkey', 'ape', and 'fish' lack rigor. They are words that have no taxonomic or phylogenetic utility. Such words cannot simply be superimposed onto any rigorous cladistics system, and the problem with doing so can be seen both because a) there are internal contradictions within any every day language (i.e. barbary apes) and b) because different languages have different cultural baggage associated with those translated words, and c) the meanings of such words change according to cultural pressures that have nothing to do with any cladistic validity - these words are both platonic and typological and arbitrary. On the contrary, words like 'simian', 'hominid', and 'sarcopterygii' are useful across all languages, and are defined independently from the fashionable whims of the local culture, their definitions are based on hard biological rules, and present vastly more rigour than any local word. Every day language cannot be prescribed, scientific terms necessarily are.

2) Phylogenetic systematics is specifically focused on the historical evolutionary relationships between taxa. It has utility and is a formalized approach to produce knowledge about evolutionary relationships. However, it is certainly not the only form of classification, nor the only one which has utility. For example, there is evolutionary taxonomy, which is not so concerned about monophyly, and is quite happy to allow paraphyletic relationships between taxa, for example, excluding birds from dinosaurs while acknowledging that dinosaurs gave rise to birds. Phylogenetic systematics is not useful for defining taxa today, rather, it's useful for defining their historical relationships. As such, when push comes to shove, defining all modern terrestrial animals as 'fish' results in absurdity because there's no utility in doing so if one wants to be able to define any given taxon. No scientist denies the fact of common ancestry, but there are other perfectly valid classificatory approaches that don't require calling all these different taxa 'fish' without actually denying they evolved from fish.

Any suggestion that phylogenetic systematics is the One True classification is not something I will countenance. It has specific utility in specific areas, but becomes less useful outside its area. The thread title and OP specifically makes a distinction between praxis by scientists and discourse with non-scientists. It argues that we should tell the public that we are 'monkeys', prescribing language, dictating its usage. However, the word 'monkey' already exists in public usage, and thus potentially means different things to different people. This jumping around between using woolly words in a rigorous framework seems doomed to result in more confusion than it seeks to address as far as I am concerned. I also think that the public should not be fudged at in pretense that they won't get it. I think if one explains what the word 'hominid' means, for example, they'll be just as competent at utilizing it as they would be with any other word, plus this approach is equivalent for all language groups making scientific language a way of bringing us all together under common understanding.

To me, the suggestion made in the OP is directly contradictory to its stated desired outcome.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:37 am
SparhafocPosts: 2432Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

hackenslash wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:You have said that tetrapods aren't fish since there are a host of differences between the two. I


May we have a citation for this, please? I don't recall it.



For clarity, I said nothing of the sort.

What I actually said is that the term 'tetrapod' is not parallel to the term 'monkey', and that there's a host of differences between these terms.



viewtopic.php?p=180827#p180827


Sparhafoc wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Is this thing a tetrapod or not?


Yes. Now you explain the difference cladistically speaking between the term 'tetrapod' and the term 'monkey'. There's a host of differences.



Tetrapod is a rigorously defined label for a superclass, monkey is a word in English full of woolly platonic notions.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:51 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 10
 [ 190 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests